359 reputation
419
bio website ericmenze.com
location Minneapolis, MN
age 29
visits member for 2 years, 6 months
seen Oct 20 at 12:20

I'm a Computer (Web) Programmer/Analyst based in Anchorage, AK and Minneapolis, MN. I use (among other things) ASP.NET, C# and SQL Server.

I build things. Bicycles, computers, websites, guitars, cars, motorcycles, sound sytems... lots of things.


Aug
17
comment What would be likely to completely stop a subatomic particle assuming it was possible?
I don't. One of the claims I don't make is that it is impossible that my grandfather was not a sperm in a lab tube. The claim of the uncertainty principle is that it is true with absolute certainty, everywhere, at all times and under all conditions; even ones we haven't observed (like a particle at absolute zero). It would be wise to doubt anyone that claims certainty about the birth of their grand grand fathers. Why is it not wise to doubt the uncertainty principle's claims to perfect adherence, everywhere at all times?
Aug
17
comment What would be likely to completely stop a subatomic particle assuming it was possible?
Then how do we know, beyond a doubt, that particles must adhere to the wavefunction that we say it has to, under all conditions everywhere, even when we have never seen a particle at absolute zero, nor observed matter inside a black hole, or lots of places in the universe? Where's the support for this claim? Why is it that we're comfortable saying things like 'spacetime breaks down inside a black hole' and not comfortable saying 'the uncertainty principle breaks down at absolute zero'?
Aug
17
comment What would be likely to completely stop a subatomic particle assuming it was possible?
And what is it that makes you so certain that this is not the world we live in in certain regions and certain conditions? What if QM is correct for non-absolute zero particles only? Is that so hard to imagine in our current universe? For that matter, what if the uncertainty principle were false, but everything else about QM still worked. Would it not be QM anymore? QM can't even exist without the HUP?
Aug
17
comment What would be likely to completely stop a subatomic particle assuming it was possible?
Why couldn't the position be measured? I get the momentum is now known (0), as so the particle can now be anywhere in the universe? WHAT IF we stopped it, and then (somehow) measured the position. The uncertainty principle would no longer hold for absolute zero, right?
Aug
16
comment What would be likely to completely stop a subatomic particle assuming it was possible?
What are delta(x) and delta(p)? Does this mean the position and momentum can both be known, in direct conflict with the uncertainty principle?
Aug
16
comment What would be likely to completely stop a subatomic particle assuming it was possible?
I like your analogy, but I still see uncertainty overreaching what can be claimed. It's like saying 'dV can't be determined with this ocean on earth, so dV can't be determined of any ocean of any size on any planet, anywhere, ever.' I could, as a thought experiment, evaporate that ocean until there remains only one particle of water left in it to make dV constant.
Aug
16
comment What would be likely to completely stop a subatomic particle assuming it was possible?
So if there was an atom of Hydrogen that was AT absolute zero, exactly, the electron would STOP rotating, and be pulled into the nucleus? And it's position and momentum could both be known at the same time?
Aug
16
comment What would be likely to completely stop a subatomic particle assuming it was possible?
So to you, a truly motionless particle is just as ridiculous/unsupported/unscientific as random assertions about other dimensions? Here's where I'd draw one (of many) big differences: the claim of QM is 'there can NEVER be a motionless particle, under any condition, ever, anywhere' which I have yet to see satisfactorily supported. I would liken this to the accepted view being 'there can NEVER be a fifth dimension, under any circumstance, and it's unquestionable.'
Aug
16
comment What would be likely to completely stop a subatomic particle assuming it was possible?
Is absolute zero equivalent to motionless particles/electrons?
Aug
16
comment What would be likely to completely stop a subatomic particle assuming it was possible?
The light from the inside of a black hole, or in regions outside our observable light cone both by definition do not reach us and are not detectable. I fail to see how hydrogen absorption lines = particles can never be stopped under any condition, at any location, ever.
Aug
16
revised What would be likely to completely stop a subatomic particle assuming it was possible?
Clarified title, phrased as thought experiment not confined to QM being true, added bonus
Aug
16
revised What would be likely to completely stop a subatomic particle assuming it was possible?
Clarified title, phrased as thought experiment not confined to QM being true
Aug
16
revised What would be likely to completely stop a subatomic particle assuming it was possible?
Clarified title
Aug
16
comment What would be likely to completely stop a subatomic particle assuming it was possible?
In any case, I don't get why the only answers I get to 'Suppose you could do x. Then what?" are "You just can't, not now, not ever, not a supreme race or technology" - as though it is heresy to question the model. Am I asking the questions wrong?
Aug
16
awarded  Editor
Aug
16
revised What would be likely to completely stop a subatomic particle assuming it was possible?
Clarified the question
Aug
16
comment What would be likely to completely stop a subatomic particle assuming it was possible?
Accuracy does not prove correctness. It could be accurate for the wrong reasons. Again, it keeps coming to this: if the uncertainty commutation is false, then all of QM and it's predictions must be scrapped, and I don't understand why. Think all of QM is true + you can stop a particle under certain conditions. Then what? I've never encountered anything that is so 'unquestionable' in science before.
Aug
16
comment What would be likely to completely stop a subatomic particle assuming it was possible?
Why cannot there be a subtle improvement of QM under certain conditions, the same way Newtonian Physics was 'almost there' until we observed relativistic effects? What IF a particle could be stopped? QM holds for most cases, except <insert certain conditions here>?
Aug
16
comment What would be likely to completely stop a subatomic particle assuming it was possible?
(in case I didn't state my question well enough, I did not provide my own answer. I want to know: what if the uncertainty commutation does not hold under certain conditions? Not: it holds, don't doubt it.)
Aug
16
comment What would be likely to completely stop a subatomic particle assuming it was possible?
The part I'm missing is why uncertainty isn't questioned, or why there's never a "maybe the commutations don't always hold" discussion. Whenever something conflicts with it, the next statement is <therefore that something is wrong>, as though it's set in stone and its not worth questioning. How do you KNOW there aren't certain conditions (that perhaps we haven't the technology or ability to create) in which the uncertainty commutations do not hold?